🔥 | Latest

Birthday, Community, and Lesbians: maireddog: Mark Ashton died on this day, the 11th of February, in 1987. Mark was born on the 19th of May, 1960 in Oldham, but grew up in Portrush, Northern Ireland. He moved to London in 1978, where he worked in a bar in King’s Cross, in drag as a barmaid with a blonde beehive. In the 1980s, he volunteered for London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard, campaigned for CND and joined the Communist Party, becoming the first gay secretary of the Young Communist League. Though Mark transformed the Party’s approach to LGBT rights, he and Mike Jackson, who he’d met through Switchboard, wanted to be active as openly gay people. They formed Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) when they collected donations for miners on strike at 1984 Gay Pride. In the evening of 1984 Pride, a miner spoke at a rally, and they were struck by the similarities between the two struggle, of LGBT rights and the Miners’ Strike. Having collected about £150, they advertised a meeting in Capital Gay. 11 people turned up and from the meeting they made a leaflet to launch LGSM - the leaflet was accepted except with an amendment to ‘one in ten miners is gay.’ As LGSM, they supported the miners as lesbian and gay people. At the second meeting, they decided to focus on one community, of the Dulais Valley, as one of the members, Hugh Williams, was from there. They then met David (Dai) Donovan, who also had thought through the similarities of their struggles and how LGSM could help. A month later, 27 lesbians and gay men, arrived at Onllwyn village in Dulais Valley. Other than some hostility (and confusion towards vegetarianism), they experienced warmth, friendship and solidarity. LGSM raised £20,000 for families of miners on strike, and based on The Sun writing that “a group of perverts” were “supporting the pits,” they organised the Pits and Perverts concert in December, 1984, headlined by Bronski Beat. The miners marched with LGSM at Gay Pride in 1985. Mark was admitted to hospital on 30th January, 1987, and died 12 days later from pneumonia, aged 26. At his memorial, there were banners from the Communist Party, Anti-Apartheid, anti-nuclear, Caribbean and community groups, as well as from LGSM. The Mark Ashton Trust was created to support individuals diagnosed with Aids; Mark is also remembered on the UK Aids Memorial Quilt and by Terrence Higgins Trust, with the Mark Ashton Red Ribbon Fund and a plaque at their London headquarters. In 2017, on what would have been his 57th birthday, he was honoured with a blue plaque above Gay’s The Word bookshop. [Images: 1. Mark Ashton at Gay Pride 1981. 2. Mark Ashton at Gay Pride 1985, wearing a LGSM t-shirt and holding a pink “Communist Party” banner with the words “pinko commie queers.” 3. Blue plaque reading: “Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners. Mark Ashton 1960-1987. Political and Community Activist. LGSM met at Gay’s the Word bookship on this site 1984/5.”]
Birthday, Community, and Lesbians: maireddog:
Mark Ashton died on this day, the 11th of February, in 1987. 
Mark 
was born on the 19th of May, 1960 in Oldham, but grew up in Portrush, Northern Ireland. He moved to London in 1978, where he worked in
 a bar in King’s Cross, in drag as a barmaid with a blonde beehive.
In
 the 1980s, he volunteered for London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard, 
campaigned for CND and joined the Communist Party, becoming the first gay secretary of the Young Communist League. Though Mark transformed the Party’s approach to LGBT rights, he and Mike Jackson, who he’d met through Switchboard, wanted to be active as openly gay people. They formed 
Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) when they collected donations for miners on strike at 1984 Gay Pride.
In the evening of 1984 Pride, a miner spoke at a rally, and they were struck by the similarities between the two struggle, of LGBT rights and the Miners’ Strike. Having collected about £150, they advertised a meeting in Capital Gay. 11 people turned up and from the meeting they made a leaflet to launch LGSM - the leaflet was accepted except with an amendment to ‘one in ten miners is gay.’ 
As LGSM, they supported the miners as lesbian and gay people. At the second meeting, they decided to focus on one community, of the Dulais Valley, as one of the members, Hugh Williams, was from there. They then met David (Dai) Donovan, who also had thought through the similarities of their struggles and how LGSM could help. A month later, 27 lesbians and gay men, arrived at Onllwyn village in Dulais Valley. 
Other than some hostility (and confusion towards vegetarianism), they experienced warmth, friendship and solidarity. LGSM raised £20,000 for families of miners on strike, and based on The Sun writing that “a group of perverts” were “supporting the pits,” they organised the Pits and Perverts concert in December, 1984, headlined by Bronski Beat. The miners marched with LGSM at Gay Pride in 1985. 
Mark was admitted to hospital on 30th January, 1987, and died 12 days later from pneumonia, aged 26. At his memorial, there were banners from the Communist Party, Anti-Apartheid, anti-nuclear, Caribbean and community groups, as well as from LGSM. The Mark Ashton Trust was created to support individuals 
diagnosed with Aids; Mark is also remembered on the UK Aids Memorial 
Quilt and by Terrence Higgins Trust, with the Mark Ashton Red Ribbon 
Fund and a plaque at their London headquarters. In 2017, on what would have been his 57th birthday, he was honoured with a blue 
plaque above Gay’s The Word bookshop. 

[Images: 1. Mark Ashton at Gay Pride 1981. 2. Mark Ashton at Gay 
Pride 
1985, wearing a LGSM t-shirt and holding a pink “Communist Party” banner
 with the words “pinko commie queers.” 3. Blue plaque reading: “Lesbians
 and Gays Support the Miners. Mark Ashton 1960-1987. Political and 
Community Activist. LGSM met at Gay’s the Word bookship on this site 
1984/5.”]

maireddog: Mark Ashton died on this day, the 11th of February, in 1987. Mark was born on the 19th of May, 1960 in Oldham, but grew up in P...

America, Memes, and New York: ONEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein Director of Communications jordan.stein@gunowners.org AMER 703-321-8585 January 22, 2019 For immediate release GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City's Draconian Gun Laws Springfield, VA Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief. This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade. GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the lower courts GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment. "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt concluded. GOA's brief can be viewed here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica
America, Memes, and New York: ONEWS RELEASE
 MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein
 Director of Communications
 jordan.stein@gunowners.org
 AMER 703-321-8585
 January 22, 2019
 For immediate release
 GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York
 City's Draconian Gun Laws
 Springfield, VA
 Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in
 P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners
 Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief.
 This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin
 handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the
 Supreme Court in almost a decade.
 GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy
 those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court
 is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second
 Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a
 alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class
 right to keep and bear arms
 In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the
 lower courts
 GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun
 Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment.
 "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by
 arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second
 Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt
 concluded.
 GOA's brief can be viewed here
 Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica

BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before...

Guns, Period, and Tumblr: Mikel Jollett@Mikel_Jollett 9h Jacob Wohl e @JacobAWohl Remember that period in American history when people were crushed by the government and marched off to camps? Neither do l. That's because we have the Second Amendment. 2/24/18, 4:17 PM Qasim Rashid, Esq. @MuslimiQ Japanese concentration camps rebelminds: siryouarebeingmocked: durkin62: j0skik: “65 year old with gun only thing standing between a full scale government takeover” No, more like a bunch of people with guns about 50 times the size of the entire military, about 500 times the number with actual combat posistions, and enough spare guns to arm literally the entire nation. I like how this piece of brilliance ignores the whole “crushing” part. Which implies the government uses deadly force. Oh, and Japanese Americans had their guns confiscated when they were interned. Many of them tried to turn in ‘problematic’ stuff ahead of time, including guns, hoping it would help. It didn’t. They were also given the option to voluntarily ‘resettle’ outside of certain areas. Though it is fun to see a bunch of left-wing people using an example of a racist government policy by a Democrat as evidence to support gun control. Also the fact that the same political group that passed the internment camps is the one trying to grab our guns now ^That part*
Guns, Period, and Tumblr: Mikel Jollett@Mikel_Jollett 9h
 Jacob Wohl e
 @JacobAWohl
 Remember that period in American
 history when people were crushed by the
 government and marched off to camps?
 Neither do l.
 That's because we have the Second
 Amendment.
 2/24/18, 4:17 PM
 Qasim Rashid, Esq.
 @MuslimiQ
 Japanese concentration camps
rebelminds:
siryouarebeingmocked:


durkin62:

j0skik:

“65 year old with gun only thing standing between a full scale government takeover”

No, more like a bunch of people with guns about 50 times the size of the entire military, about 500 times the number with actual combat posistions, and enough spare guns to arm literally the entire nation. 

I like how this piece of brilliance ignores the whole “crushing” part. Which implies the government uses deadly force.
Oh, and Japanese Americans had their guns confiscated when they were interned. Many of them tried to turn in ‘problematic’ stuff ahead of time, including guns, hoping it would help. It didn’t. They were also given the option to voluntarily ‘resettle’ outside of certain areas.
Though it is fun to see a bunch of left-wing people using an example of a racist government policy by a Democrat as evidence to support gun control.


Also the fact that the same political group that passed the internment camps is the one trying to grab our guns now 


^That part*

rebelminds: siryouarebeingmocked: durkin62: j0skik: “65 year old with gun only thing standing between a full scale government takeover” ...

Bodies , Gif, and News: SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT All American Girl @AllAmericanGirl Actress Mira Sorvino: Trump Era ls Like Pre-Nazi Germany' - 'Eerie Echoes of the Concentration Camps' breitbart.com/ video/2018/06.. @BreitbartNews #AAG ING NEWS Actress Mira Sorvino: Trump Era ls Like 'Pre-Nazi Germany- Eerie Echoes of the Concentration.. breitbart.com 1:06 PM 24 Jun 18 т. Ј. Rhattigan @tjrhattigan Replying to @MiraSorvino @BreitbartNews You're a pretty girl and I've enjoyed your acting, but you can't possibly know what pre-Nazi Germany was like. Stick with what your good at. Acting Mira Sorvino @MiraSorvino I wrote my thesis on racial conflict and persecution at Harvard, worked on a documentary on Neo-Nazi hate groups in Russia, performed in the film about the SonderKommando at Auschwitz The Grey Zone, and am an avid student of The Holocaust and what lead to it, soI beg to differ. This quoted Tweet is unavailable. 7:13 PM 24 Jun 18 4,468 Retweets 21.7K Likes goatyellsateverything: salmicka1: rebakitt3n: chancecalloway: THIS QUOTED TWEET IS UNAVAILABLE. when a woman smacks you and you run away like a big baby. Trump era is not like a pre-nazi Germany. Because pre-nazi Germany was one big mess without a leader. There were no camps, before 1933 in Germany - and nazis ruled from 1933 (first camp in Germany was built in Dachau in 1933)… so the actress is very badly educated, and the guy was right. Wrote her thesis on racial conflict. So, NOT Nazis.Worked on a Neo-Nazi documentary. So, NOT ww2 Nazis.Performed in a film about Auschwitz and the (mostly) Jewish groups that were forced to dispose of the gas chamber bodies. So, something that could NOT have happened in pre-Nazi Germany.An avid student of the Holocaust? “I’ve heard of Hitler so I’m basically an expert.“
Bodies , Gif, and News: SUPPORT
 THE 2ND
 AMENDMENT
 All American Girl
 @AllAmericanGirl
 Actress Mira Sorvino: Trump Era ls Like
 Pre-Nazi Germany' - 'Eerie Echoes of
 the Concentration Camps' breitbart.com/
 video/2018/06.. @BreitbartNews #AAG
 ING NEWS
 Actress Mira Sorvino: Trump Era ls Like 'Pre-Nazi
 Germany- Eerie Echoes of the Concentration..
 breitbart.com
 1:06 PM 24 Jun 18

 т. Ј. Rhattigan @tjrhattigan
 Replying to @MiraSorvino @BreitbartNews
 You're a pretty girl and I've enjoyed your acting, but you can't possibly know
 what pre-Nazi Germany was like. Stick with what your good at. Acting

 Mira Sorvino
 @MiraSorvino
 I wrote my thesis on racial conflict and
 persecution at Harvard, worked on a
 documentary on Neo-Nazi hate groups in
 Russia, performed in the film about the
 SonderKommando at Auschwitz The
 Grey Zone, and am an avid student of
 The Holocaust and what lead to it, soI
 beg to differ.
 This quoted Tweet is unavailable.
 7:13 PM 24 Jun 18
 4,468 Retweets 21.7K Likes
goatyellsateverything:

salmicka1:
rebakitt3n:

chancecalloway:
THIS QUOTED TWEET IS UNAVAILABLE.
when a woman smacks you and you run away like a big baby.

Trump era is not like a pre-nazi Germany. Because pre-nazi Germany was one big mess without a leader. There were no camps, before 1933 in Germany - and nazis ruled from 1933 (first camp in Germany was built in Dachau in 1933)… so the actress is very badly educated, and the guy was right. 

Wrote her thesis on racial conflict. So, NOT Nazis.Worked on a Neo-Nazi documentary. So, NOT ww2 Nazis.Performed in a film about Auschwitz and the (mostly) Jewish groups that were forced to dispose of the gas chamber bodies. So, something that could NOT have happened in pre-Nazi Germany.An avid student of the Holocaust?

“I’ve heard of Hitler so I’m basically an expert.“

goatyellsateverything: salmicka1: rebakitt3n: chancecalloway: THIS QUOTED TWEET IS UNAVAILABLE. when a woman smacks you and you run away l...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...